168: The court is before the Catholicos. His Holiness acted correctly. Pashinyan to Lukashenko

Satik Seyranyan’s guest in the “Pressing” program is political analyst Hakob Badalyan.

Today it became known that the case of the Catholicos of All Armenians and 6 high-ranking clerics was assigned to a new judge. According to “Datalex”, the case will be examined by the judge of Armavir region Serzh Rushanyan, a 29-year-old judge who was appointed as a judge in 2023, before that he worked in the Ministry of Justice.

From the very first day of the colorful velvet revolution of 2018, Nikol Pashinyan has been persecuting and attacking the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Catholicos of All Armenians, and other clergy. 44-day war, surrender of Artsakh, ethnic cleansing, transfer of territories from Armenia, and now rapid processes are taking place around Syunik – the TRIPP project, etc.

Aliyev’s assistant Hajiyev, Azerbaijan’s foreign minister, leaders of various nationalist parties from Turkey, representatives of the government, ministers, etc., are making statements that the “Zangezur Corridor” will be completed soon.

Even Hajiyev and other Azerbaijani officials declare that the Armenian side has already taken some actions, carried out some local explosions, advanced the process… The leader of Turkish nationalist forces, close to Erdogan, Bahceli announced from Turkey that the Zangezur Corridor is the Great Turan. Parallel to this, the RA authorities are intensifying the relations with Russia and have resumed the campaign against the Church, the Catholicos…

What do these developments against the Church, against the Holy Father have to do with geopolitical processes? For what purpose did they target the Armenian Apostolic Church, His Holiness the Patriarch?

The main theses of the interview are below.

• The problem is to deprive Armenia of its subjectivity and push it out as a subject, a political unit that has rights, interests, the ability to formulate them, etc., turning the country into just an area where the competition between different geopolitical centers unfolds, and this competition is aimed at their place, role, areas of control, etc. in the new world order.

The Armenian Apostolic Church is a huge resource that gives subjectivity to the Armenian statehood, potential not only in the sense of internal identity structure (i.e. national identity, political consciousness, value system, etc.), but also in the sense of international role, of course, in the religious space. In geopolitics, the religious component is always one of the key ones, and especially in such historical periods, it becomes more important.

And from this point of view, the Armenian Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, with its international role in different regions, in different directions, also gives the Armenian statehood a right, an additional right. If, for example, we are in the Caucasus from the state point of view, thanks to the Armenian Apostolic Church, we can also have a much more comprehensive presence worldwide. 

• If the state and the church are able to act in a coordinated, harmonious manner, this mutually provides opportunities for the church to the state and the state to the church.

And in that case, we get a subjective opportunity and perspective in various other regions. I have talked about it many times. In the Middle East, which is the crucible of world politics and where extremely important issues are decided, we are essentially deprived of subjectivity in that region as well.

It seems that we, as a state, are not there, but our region is under the influence of the events unfolding in the Middle East itself (after the weakening of the Armenian factor, Azerbaijan is now trying to settle in Syria and Lebanon).

• The campaign against the Armenian Apostolic Church in general is a campaign to push Armenia, with its statehood potential, out of the Middle East, but also a campaign to weaken the church itself, where the church, as one of the ancient institutions of the world churches, also has rights there, and these rights cannot be ignored, because they are also internationally recognized rights, both in Jerusalem and in other directions. 

• The goal is for the Republic of Armenia to no longer have a significant subjective potential. In other words, yes, it will turn into just a territory, but where there will be nothing national. The national has been targeted, because our subjectivity, our state subjectivity is formed through the national, but the main task of these forces is to destroy the subjectivity of our nation and, of course, the subjectivity of the Armenian Apostolic Church. And, moreover, now, in fact, this is done by the hands of the Armenian state. 

• And that is the most tragic aspect of this situation, apart from the political and geopolitical ones, because the Armenian statehood was brought out against the Armenian Apostolic Church by the hands of the RA authorities (I mean the authority of that statehood).

And from this point of view, let me repeat, yes, this is a process of subjective destruction of the Armenian Apostolic Church-institute and the state of the Republic of Armenia. 

• And why do I say that the worst thing was that he actually made the society, at least the part that voted for Pashinyan, CP in these elections, an accomplice. And tomorrow he will say: you voted for me, you delegated me to go and make changes in the church, to take actions against the church, to appoint myself the Most Reverend Catholicos, etc., etc. 

• Armenian society should be able to correctly assess the situation and challenges and, accordingly, work out what to do in neutralizing these challenges. 

• Why did Pashinyan include his campaign against the Church, the Catholicos, in the pre-election program of the CP? I think that point was included in the KP program as an assurance of adherence to that line to external actors who support the maintenance of its political positions.

• The Armenian Apostolic Church is a competitor not only within the framework of geopolitical centers, but also with denominational (Catholic, etc.) churches. If there is a geopolitical struggle for a new role and place in the world, naturally, everyone is fighting for it, and everyone becomes everyone’s competitor, by and large. 

• It is very important for our society to correctly assess the problem, and we record that Pashinyan is one of the manifestations of that problem. Therefore, if we cannot assess the scale more precisely, we will not be able to correctly decide how to neutralize the challenge coming from that scale.

And in addition to considering this process as a challenge, it should also be considered as an opportunity so that we, as a society and Armenians, value the role of the church and also value the perspective of the church-state, church-state relationship. 

• There is a great deal to be done, one should focus on that to be done, thereby also neutralizing the challenges. We cannot win in that process with a symmetrical confrontation, because those forces fighting against the Armenian Church really have enormous, incomparable resources, abilities and influence in the world. Therefore, we can consider our chance only in an asymmetric process. That asymmetric process also implies making agreements with, for example, geopolitical, external competing centers, churches, forces. And what are the options for making that agreement? Either you make an offer, formulate your offer, which is interesting and discussable, with the prospect of agreeing on it, or you completely submit to the demands presented to you.

We need to do the work, to understand, in general, what kind of compatibility our church and the state have in the new world, what role they can assume and also offer to the world (at least to the political, religious, economic and other centers fighting for the world order).

I think this is the problem that we should be able to solve. And the rest, what is happening in Armenia (this campaign, the trial against Vehapar, etc.), are its metastases. If we correctly diagnose the problem at the global level and start developing that strategic idea (what we are doing), we will find the answers to these processes inside, I think, easier.

To remind: His Holiness the Patriarch delivered a message that day in the Mother Cathedral, in which he urged to be sober, not to give in to provocations and to remain firm in faith.

“… My father urges all of you to be sober and prudent, not to give in to provocations, insidious schemes, to remain firm in faith and hope, because God brings out good things for his Holy Church and the believing people from all malicious realities and trials. Our faith is also strengthened in tribulations, our constant dedication to God, motherland and the Church, unbroken loyalty to our sacred national-spiritual values ​​is demonstrated. In the face of external and internal threats, let’s strengthen our national unity, let’s make our process fruitful with patriotic and national-interesting deeds and according to the message of the apostle, let’s be strengthened by the Lord and the power of His power (Eph. 6:10). 

• His Holiness went to court because he was guided by the very logic that in this case it is the question of the relationship between the state and the church. In other words, he went to the state institute. Another question is what is the influence, attitude, etc. of the government of the same state towards that state institution. And thus, in my opinion, His Holiness has shown that the Armenian Apostolic Church stands before the state and does not go against the state or avoid the state.

In other words, by going to the court, the Catholicos of All Armenians, in my opinion, showed that he is not in any dispute or fight with the government, as this government tries to represent. And this, I think, is very important. If we look philosophically, I even mentioned that from that point of view the court stands before the Supreme Court and not the Supreme Court before the court.

And the logic would be completely different if the Catholicos of All Armenians refused to go. it would, of course, have the effect or impression of a rallying epitaph on many people. And many circles of our society, of course, during these years (not only after 2018, but also due to the activity of opposition forces before 2018) have been infected with the circumstance of measuring and evaluating the world by the epitaph of the rally itself. And this is very important, that is, not to enter into the logic of symmetrical confrontation. the church has no chance there either.

It is very welcome when the Armenian Apostolic Church does not enter into the logic of symmetrical confrontation and does not provide what this government is betting on and what, perhaps, is already being bet on by external and bigger beneficiaries.  

• Pashinyan’s statements aimed at the Eurasian Economic Union and Russia are aimed at internal consumption. One of the motives is an attempt to satisfy his electorate even after the election. In Kyrgyzstan, in my estimation, the most significant statement was made by Pashinyan in a conversation with journalists, when in response to the question about the situation around Armenia, Pashinyan used the following wording that this process of going to the EU is the result of the instigation of some EAEU partners, and it was obvious that he meant Lukashenko, because he clarified later that as if people said that we have nowhere to go, we don’t need anyone, and we didn’t perceive it negatively, but positive, and went on to show where we were going, etc.

Now it turns out that Pashinyan puts the actual responsibility for this process on Lukashenko. Because if Lukashenko had not instigated it, it actually turns out that Armenia would not have done all this. In other words, Armenia did not initiate this European course, but Lukashenko instigated it.

Against the background of what happened in Kyrgyzstan, he avoids responsibility for the situation that exists now. In my opinion, Pashinyan is starting a process in that direction. that is, he should think about gradually getting rid of the illusion of membership in the European Union. Not that he himself was in that illusion, but that he had formed that illusion among his electorate.

Now we need to get rid of it, because no one knows better and does not imagine that all this is a fairy tale and has no prospects than Nikol Pashinyan himself. This is obvious and has been seen for a long time in various allusions. He also spoke about this in the same Kyrgyzstan, when he said that we are ready to hold a referendum, but the referendum must have an object, and that object does not exist. And if, for example, we hold a referendum, the Armenian society will say: well, what road map are we moving on, it won’t be fair, what prospects are there, etc.

• When a country adopts a law on membership of the European Union, even with one letter or one sentence, it at least implies that there should be some concept under that law. And Pashinyan at least admits that there is absolutely no such perspective and idea. It was just a law arising from the situation, which aimed to create the illusion that he was going to the European Union, and based on that to form electoral votes ahead of the parliamentary elections. 

• Now, the moment of that referendum is very important in this regard. I wonder if Armenia can really give flesh and blood to that process by December, which is generated from Russia, the Eurasian Union and other countries, in the form of admonition or expectation. Because, in my opinion, the idea of ​​the referendum will fit into the goal of getting rid of the illusion of membership in the European Union. 

• And what will the European Union do, let’s assume Armenia refuses all that? The European Union has no other place in the Caucasus, except Armenia, and I think Nikol Pashinyan understands this well. Giving up Armenia means giving up the Caucasus, because we know what the situation is in Georgia, and Azerbaijan talks to them on an equal footing, and they also have a certain dependence on energy carriers and so on. Their only, so to speak, foothold in the Caucasus is Armenia. If they lose that, of course, they can start destabilizing actions, etc., but what prospects do they have there? This is a big question. Therefore, I think that the European Union does not have such a large flexible playing field in Armenia. 

• The whole story of TRIPP is that the United States is pushing the European Union out of the Middle Corridor. 

• The entire task of the United States is to prevent the formation of Sino-European economic-strategic communication, and this is another evidence that the assessment of this collective Western interest or manifestation does not fit into reality. 

• I don’t think there is an economic war between Armenia and Russia. Yes, a significant segment of Armenia’s economy is simply placed on the altar of political calculations and political interests, but this, in my opinion, is not an Armenian-Russian economic war.

• I have said many times that I consider the topic of CSTO as a topic used for propaganda purposes. 

• If the Ukrainian issue is so acute for Russia, then the Russians should have reacted with the same intensity in the case of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, but we see, for example, that the President of Kazakhstan speaks in the presence of Putin about the need to freeze the Ukrainian conflict, etc., and there is no acute reaction from Moscow.

• Many circles of the Ukrainian government may be looking for communication with Moscow, because, for example, it is not known what will be the fate of Zelensky and, in general, the fate of the remaining members of that team.

• When talking about Kazakhstan, one should take into account the situation in 2022, when the CSTO troops entered there (including under the presidency of Armenia), and the actual CSTO kept Tokayev’s power. And now it is also necessary to discuss, for example, what effect this circumstance has had during these years. But this does not prevent Tokaev from expressing his position regarding the Ukrainian war. 

• I completely disagree that Nikol Pashinyan is pursuing an anti-Russian policy. The apparent developments and statements are not sufficient indicators for me to conclude that an anti-Russian policy is being pursued. 

• It is extremely difficult for Russia to assume full responsibility here, because it simply does not have the ability to fulfill this responsibility. Therefore, it is very good if alibis for avoiding responsibility are formed for him here. With his policy, Nikol Pashinyan, willingly or unwillingly, gives Russia an alibi to explain its tactical retreat in the Caucasus and, in general, its policy towards Armenia. 

• Today’s situation allows us to conclude that these processes can cause certain swings or cracks within the government. There are certain movements or attempts to rock the boat, but I don’t think they will be fatal problems for Pashinyan. The European Union, as much as it tries to appear influential today, simply does not have the ability to do so. The EU has serious problems in the Caucasus itself, and does not have much room for maneuver regarding Yerevan and Armenia. Yes, they can resort to destabilizing tactics, but the big question here is whether they will benefit from it. 

Their only interest is the preservation of power through Pashinyan and the implementation of a policy that they imagine. However, the whole point is that what Pashinyan is doing today does not at all contradict the interests of either Russia or the United States. From this point of view, the big question is whether Pashinyan is doing what the European Union wants. The European Union does not really have much room for maneuver in the Caucasus and Armenia. 

• As for the claims that the socio-political forces under Western influence can overthrow Pashinyan, that resource is exaggerated. Moreover, it may sound strange, but a significant number of circles with an anti-Russian position have practically rendered a much more useful service to Russia itself than to the West. 

• When Pashinyan, for example, touches on the subject of the church in his pre-election programs, it is due to the fact that there are constant doubts about his political sentiments from outside, and he has to work to dispel those doubts. And when the EU asks if he is ready to review the Russian concession, Pashinyan says yes, he is ready to show that he is “in the game”. 

In today’s global all-vs-all war mode, he is forced to maneuver as much as he has the ability and resources to do so. If you sow intra-societal hatred inside and bet on it, you will have no room for external maneuver at all and you will have to put either Artsakh or Armenia’s economy on the altar. 

• The recently adopted paper on the EU was just a set of toasts, while the key and meaningful document on the ground for Armenian-European relations remains the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) signed in November 2017, which was ratified by the parliaments of all EU member states.

• Of course, it was announced that Armenia and the EU are signing a new strategic partnership document. But it was done precisely because CEPA has legal force and creates a clear responsibility regarding the Artsakh issue and its fundamental principles: territorial integrity, national self-determination and non-use of force. In fact, with its current policy, the European Union violates CEPA, which also stems from the fact that official Yerevan has de facto renounced all of that, dissolving the OSCE Minsk Group as well. All this coincides with the one year anniversary of the dissolution of the Minsk Group, which is one of the key circumstances of the politics of the last 4-4.5 years. 

• Formulations about sovereignty and territorial integrity are just a sign here. we all understand that we are dealing with de facto expropriation of the road. The American data center is also in the same logic (data centers), which was actually acknowledged by Pashinyan in his speech at its opening, noting that all this became reality in the context of August 8. Armenia has committed and provided space for this center, which in the digital world are actually military bases in a conventional sense.

Digital technologies have a significant impact on global processes today. Let’s remember that after the war unleashed against Iran, Iran targeted and attacked the artificial intelligence data centers of large American companies in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. The Iranians did it not just to cause damage, but very subtly and accurately realizing that these centers serve military and political goals. 

So, the opening of this data center in Armenia has no other great significance. it is part of the August 8 bundle. As for investments, it should be noted that almost 80% of the huge figures presented, even up to 4 billion dollars, are the money for the purchase of expensive equipment from US companies, that is, these funds will go back to the United States. Moreover, this program is de facto implemented in Armenia with Armenian financial resources. the majority of the investments of the first stage, about 300 million dollars, were provided through Armenian banks. It turns out that the USA gets another right, but the Armenian side de facto pays for it. 

The parallel is also interesting. the same company, in parallel with Armenia, signed a much larger investment agreement with Kazakhstan, where, however, it is planned not just to open a center, but to form a national artificial intelligence environment. In the case of Armenia, there is no mention of “national environment”. it is simply providing space for a center that will serve American interests while we suffer economically and environmentally. 

• Where are the ecologists and the “environmentalists” fighting against the mines now? Unfortunately, the majority of environmental movements operate at the behest of politicians. For example, Amulsar’s Western investment, once it reached the operational stage, was blocked, reshaped and turned into Armenian financing. However, there is nothing to compare here, because Amulsar had a real economic multiplier effect, while this center will provide only a few dozen jobs and will not increase the economic weight of Armenia at all. Naturally, any investment in Armenia’s economy is welcome, but the impact of this project and talk of billions of dollars are simply overstated. So this is another political project where business does its job. 

• Business behavior is understandable here, but the question is how effectively the state performs its functions. Has the Ministry of Environment measured and assessed these risks, has there been any oversight? This should be pursued primarily by those people who consider themselves selfless environmentalists. Unfortunately, these issues often serve political interests, while there is no adequate response either in the National Assembly or outside. 

• I repeat: I am not against investments in Armenia, but tomorrow we will face the problem of drinking water. If all this is done at the expense of Armenia’s resources and security, approaches must be radically changed, and relevant institutions must assess the real risks. In a political sense, however, it is obvious that this is part of the August 8 package. just as the Syunik Road was provided to foreign forces, the area was provided here to establish a de facto digital military base. 

• Azerbaijan is simply systematically and consistently doing what any country in its position should do. They work and make the most of the geopolitical situation and demand in the middle corridor. They demand a high price, while the government of Armenia, not having internal legitimate resources and building the game on the dividing lines of the society, conducts a policy of self-indulgence in the foreign field. 

• As for the issue of enclaves and the handover of Tigranashen, the government has already revealed its approaches. If they have accepted the existence of that issue, Azerbaijan will try to get the maximum. The foundations are laid and Azerbaijan will reap the benefits of this opportunity.

• Regarding the revenge and crossing of red lines against Gagik Tsarukyan and his family, I consider it reprehensible when the family is targeted and blackmailed for political revenge. However, such a gross violation of property rights, which undermines Armenia’s investment rating and the foundations of sustainable development, has unfortunately not received the principled reference of the elites since the period of the initial accumulation of capital in Armenia. If there was such reference, our history would have a different course.